The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned for February 14 the hearing of an appeal of the Haryana government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order staying the state law on providing 75 per cent reservation in private sector jobs to local candidates.
A bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao said that similar laws passed by Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand have been challenged before High Courts and asked if all those matters could be transferred to Supreme Court to decide the larger issue.
Justice Rao said, "We have been informed that such policies are also there in Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh and are pending adjudication in High Courts. I saw them in an editorial today."
The top court asked the counsel representing all the parties for their position on this proposal.
The Haryana government had approached the apex court on last Friday challenging the High Court order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Haryana government has contended that the High Court's order of staying the law was passed after hearing the state for only 90 seconds.
The High Court on February 3 put on hold the Haryana government's law to reserve 75 per cent for local candidates in private sector jobs that offer a salary of less than Rs 30,000 a month.
It had stayed the law as it failed to find merit in the state's arguments on treating the legislation as prime facie valid in the interests of the unemployed youths in the state.
The order of the High Court came on a petition challenging the vires of the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020.
The Act, notified on November 6, 2021, applies to all companies, Societies, Trusts, Limited Liability Partnership Firms, Partnership Firms, and any person employing ten or more persons, but excludes the Central Government or the State Government, or any organization owned by them.
The state government in its appeal before the top court has submitted that the Act makes a valid classification by grouping together local candidates who are unemployed and domiciled in Haryana, irrespective of their caste, creed, sex, place of origin or place of birth and their social status, so as to achieve the object of providing suitable employment in the private sector.
The appeal further stated that the Act makes a "geographical classification" on the basis of domicile and in furtherance of the fundamental right to life, livelihoods and health conditions of persons domiciled in the state.
It claimed that there is no restraint against a state legislature from creating geographical classification to incentivise and grant concessions to citizens or industrial units.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor